Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Two Popular Myths About the United States

I
don’t normally get political because that’s not what this blog is about. But
because we’ll be celebrating our nation’s independence this week, I wanted to
honor the occasion by looking at two common misconceptions about the U.S.
government. Here they are:

There
is a constitutional separation of church and state

Faith-based concepts should be kept out of the public realm

Let’s
see if I can address these highly controversial topics in the least
controversial way possible.

1.
There is a constitutional separation of church and state

The
U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a “separation of church and state”—at
least, not in the sense the phrase is understood today. In fact, that
particular phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.

So
where did the wording come from? We find it in a letter written by Thomas
Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. This group of
Baptists was concerned about a potential restriction on their freedom to pursue
religion as they saw fit. “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of
religious liberty,” they wrote, “…[and that] no man ought to suffer in
name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions.” If you read
their letter in its entirety, you’ll see that they were not concerned about
America being friendly toward religion. They were concerned about the
establishment of a state religion that infringed on the rights of dissenting
individuals.

Jefferson
agreed with the Danbury Baptists. His response
involved citing from the First Amendment (that congress would “make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof”) and thus assuring the Baptists that this clause established “a wall
of separation between Church and State.”

It
has been argued ad nauseam about what that phrase means, and I won’t delve into
the argument here. All I will say is that the First Amendment guarantees American
citizens the freedom publicly to participate in (among other things) religion,
speech, and the press. These rights are equally important and should be
defended with equal devotion.

2.
Faith-based concepts should be kept out of the public realm

This
myth is closely associated with the previous one. As an illustration: During an
argument I once overheard, one man made the following statement: “There is a
very clearly defined separation between church and state, and arguments founded
in faith have no place in the public sphere.” He said we need to have better
reasons for policies than just “well, God says so.”

Now,
there’s a certain sense in which I actually agree with this man. The United
States is not a theocracy. Even so, such a blanket statement on this
gentleman’s side of the argument ignores the reality that the seeds of our
nation’s birth were cultivated in the soil of a “God says so” proposition:

We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

The
Declaration of Independence claims that all men should be treated as equals.
Why? Because this newly established government says so? No, because
something—Someone—greater than this or any government says so. Because there is
a Creator who made us all equal and granted us certain rights.

The
very reason the United States exists is because of its acknowledgement that
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” supersede the attempts of overreaching
tyrants. Our Founding Fathers appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of [their] intentions” and placed “a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence.” At its outset, the American way of life was
bound to the idea that there is an Authority higher than any form of
government.

For
the sake of our purposes here, that Authority need not necessarily be the
Christian God in whom I believe. The Founding Fathers represented a mix of
religious beliefs, not the least of which was Deism. The point remains that
they discerned an indissoluble link between human rights and Divine fiat.

Conclusion

Okay,
so I’ve just made two controversial arguments. After reading them, you may have
concluded that at least some of my political leanings could be categorized as
“conservative.” Or you may have seen visions of me riding into the political
fray on a rogue stallion, wearing an American flag, holding a double barreled
shotgun in both hands, and firing rounds at anything that moves. Yes, political
debates can so easily be derailed by generalizations and assumptions. To avoid
that, let me quickly make a few clarifying statements.

There
are several points I am not attempting to make with this blog post.
First, I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with me on these
matters is obviously a traitor worthy of deportation. That would be a gross and
uncharitable assumption. Second, I am not saying that America was or is
or should be a Christian nation. The true Kingdom of God is not of this world,
and it cannot be reduced to being perfectly compliant with any man-made form of
government. Also, I am not saying that we need to take back “our” nation
from the radical secularists who have stolen it from us. This great nation
belongs to all who live within its borders—religious or otherwise.

So
what is my point in writing this blog post? Simply this: if we are going to
have a productive debate about these and many other political issues, let us
make every effort not to perpetuate falsehoods. Such confusion (intentional or
unintentional) only serves to dirty the waters. And politics is a dirty enough
topic to begin with.

Comments

I don’t normally get political because that’s not what this blog is about. But because we’ll be celebrating our nation’s independence this week, I wanted to honor the occasion by looking at two common misconceptions about the U.S. government. Here they are:

[This obligatory comment is designed to make Facebook recognize my article’s content. Thanks for your understanding.]

Most Popular Posts

The first assault against Jennifer
Lawrence was heavily discussed in the news and on social media. The second has received
comparatively little fanfare. The first incident resulted in an FBI
investigation, subsequent prosecution, and an upcoming sentencing. The legal ramifications of the second incident are practically
nonexistent. The overall response to the first was outrage. The response to the
second was indifference.

What were these two incidents? The
first, as you may have guessed, was the 2014 iCloud hack in which private/nude photos of several female celebrities, including
Lawrence, were stolen and published online. The second incident involved the
filming of Jennifer Lawrence’s first sex scene (for the sci-fi movie Passengers). Let me set the stage by
sharing three similarities between the photo hack and the sex scene.
First, in the aftermath of the photo hack, Lawrence experienced anxiety. “I was
just so afraid,” she later said. “I didn’t know how this would affect my caree…

Several years ago, Kate Beckinsale
was conned into signing a movie contract that required nudity—something she
didn’t want to do. With her acting career in jeopardy, she found herself
browbeaten by the director. “I was really disturbed and I was sobbing and
begging,” she said.
At long last, she gave in to intimidation and performed the nude scene, which
made her feel
“violated and horrible.” Afterwards, she secretly urinated in
the director’s thermos in revenge.

In more recent history, one
actress from the HBO show Game of Thrones mustered up the courage to refuse doing any more nude
scenes. She is reported as saying
that she wants to be known for her acting, not for her body parts. (It’s a
sorry state of affairs that requires such a statement to be made in the first
place.) When the show started, she didn’t have nearly enough clout to buck the
system. A season of the show’s overwhelming popularity may have been what put
her in a better position to bargain with the producers. Would yo…

If you’re a fan of the 2014 film God’s Not Dead, and if you’re excited
about its upcoming sequel, you and I probably have several things in common. We
likely agree that historic Christianity is becoming less and acceptable in the
public sphere. We likely agree that many of our nation’s college campuses are
becoming more and more hostile to individuals who adhere to any form of
absolutes. We also likely agree that there is an increasing need for believers
of all types—students, teachers, pastors, filmmakers, etc.—to engage with our world
in an effective and countercultural way. It’s actually because of these
shared beliefs that I’m majorly concerned with the popularity of God’s Not Dead (and other movies like
it). And it’s because of these shared beliefs that I want to explain my concerns to you. I’ll put aside most of the
artistic issues I have with the film. (For that, I’ll direct you to my cyber
friends Steven D. Greydanus and Peter T. Chattaway). My main focus here will be on the mov…

* CONTENT ADVISORY: This topic requires a certain level of
frankness that may be inappropriate for some readers. While I have taken great
pains to avoid titillation, reader discretion is still advised. * Last week, we looked at the four main ways in which motion picture sex scenes and pornography are different.
Now I want to show how these factors actually prove to condemn Hollywood’s
methods rather than excuse them. Argument #1: There is often a difference in production
values. Motion pictures are a form of art, whereas porn is unabashed
titillation. Hollywood’s mash-up of blatant
sexuality (nudity and sex scenes) and aesthetics only serves to make its
displays of sex more alluring to the viewer. As supposed works of art,
Hollywood films are concerned with giving their audiences pleasure through
beauty. That’s what aesthetics are all about. What is ultimately more alluring:
a sex scene with bad lighting, poor audio quality, and shoddy production work,
or a sex scene with good composition…

So there I was, surrounded by church members, my pants wet,
my blood boiling. This wasn’t what I needed—at least, that’s what I told
myself.

The morning had started innocently enough. Shannon and I
arrived at our church building later than normal. Because of the pouring rain
and the packed parking lot, I said I would drop Shannon off at the front and then
go park and bring our Bibles and notebooks in. (After all, with an umbrella and
a raincoat at my disposal, my trek across the parking lot wouldn’t be too bad.)
Shannon didn’t want me lugging the books in the rain, so she
grabbed them before heading into the building. I then parked near the back of
the lot and reached for the umbrella.
It wasn’t there. Not in the back seat…not in the front seat.
Not anywhere. Shannon must have taken it inside with her.
Okay. No big deal. I still had my raincoat, and thanks to my
memory of a once-watched YouTube video, I had learned the trick to staying relatively
dry while traveling in the rain: wal…

Yes, I am
still on a Greatest Showman kick. Cut
me some slack, though. My wife and I only saw it for the first time just under
three weeks ago. The soundtrack still plays almost daily in our home, providing
near endless opportunities for our toddlers to daintily prance and spin as they
sing along with “The Circus Man” (as they gleefully call him). Besides, for
someone who’s as unhip as myself, it makes sense that I would be taken in by
such an uncool (according to critics), and yet wildly popular (according to general audiences), movie.

So, what
is my point in writing another post about this particular film? To gush like a
fanboy who has staked a personal claim to gold-encrusted, front-row seats on
the Greatest Showman bandwagon? Not exactly.
(That’s just a happy side effect.) The point of this blog post is to…well,
point out a unique aspect of the song “A Million Dreams.” After listening to this
song a bajillion times (give or take a few), I’ve noticed something
extraordinary about i…

I recently read through Genesis 15, where God reassures Abram, who is currently childless, that he will have numerous descendants (which God had initially promised in Genesis 12:1-3). Abram’s response leads to something amazing: “And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).

Commenting on this verse, Martin Luther says, “Righteousness is nothing else than believing God when He makes a promise.” The anti-intuitive nature of this statement struck me forcefully. You see, I am unconsciously inclined to think that my striving hard to do well is the kind of righteousness that pleases God. When I obey a particular law, do a good deed, or reject a temptation, then I have earned at least a small degree of God’s favor. But that is not how it works.

God definitely blesses our faith-inspired efforts, but such efforts are…well, based on faith—that is, confidence in God’s promise to pardon and accept me through Christ’s atoning work. If I attempt to som…

Last week, we looked at
Hollywood’s underground culture of sexual
abuse: how actors are routinely coerced into violating their consciences by
performing nude scenes and/or sex acts on screen. While audiences have grown
comfortable with watching such scenes, actors are often uncomfortable (or
worse) with filming them.

Isn’t it true, though, that some actors
willingly undress for the camera? The simple answer is, of course, yes. But
it’s an answer that requires at least two clarifications. And since women are
the majority of the victims in these circumstances, we’ll focus on women for
the rest of the article. First, it’s not as easy as you
might think to discern the difference between willing and unwilling
performances. Take just one example (or, rather, an example in several parts)
from recent history, all involving a “willing participant.” Actress Margot Robbie recounts
how her audition went for the movie The
Wolf of Wall Street. She showed up for the audition in her usual
look: jeans …

Your argument robs adult women of
agency because it says outright that they
are not consenting and implies they
cannot consent. It infantilizes adult women and asserts that they can only
be protected by men with a white knight impulse. We’re getting into an area
where women are regarded as little more than sheep, being led by whatever crook
is nearest.
As regular visitors know, over the past few years I have
focused much of my blog’s attention on how the entertainment industry places
pressure on actors to perform nude and/or sex scenes for audiences. It’s a
problem that is at once both tacitly acknowledged and blithely ignored. I have
argued further that those who suffer most under this burden are actresses.
With my emphasis on women, some readers have responded with
major concerns. I am both thankful for and alarmed by this feedback, because
the quoted critique above is not what I have meant to communicate. Not at all. I
offered a …

Let me tell you about a film that’s garnered a lot of
publicity. The story revolves around a wealthy and debonair businessman with
serious control issues. His sexual tastes involve perverse fantasies, but he
gets what he wants because he’s rich, powerful, and handsome. In telling this
story, the movie doesn’t shy away from depictions of the sex act. The audience
is inundated with sex, in fact. The debauchery is enough to make a lot of
people sick, either with revulsion, pleasure, or a mixture of both.

Do you think I’m talking about Fifty Shades of Grey? Actually, I’m referring to The Wolf of Wall Street, which came out on
DVD just last year.
Many prominent Christian critics loved WoWS, as I pointed out earlier. Fifty Shades of Grey,
on the other hand, has been either ignored or condemned. And yet there are some
glaring similarities in how both movies handle sex.
They both employ stylistic techniques that were labeled as hardcore porn just a few decades
ago. These techniques involve …